17614 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

13See page 16 of Koenigsegg’s petition. 

not detailed in this document, the 

petitioner made a comprehensive 

showing of its good faith efforts to 

comply with the requirements of S14.2 

of FMVSS No. 208 and S7 of FMVSS 

No. 108 and detailed engineering and 

financial information demonstrating 

that failure to obtain the exemption 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship. Specifically, the petitioner 

provided the following: 

1. Chronological analysis of 

Koenigsegg’s efforts to comply, showing 

the relationship to the rulemaking 

history of the advanced air bag 

requirements. 

2. Itemized costs of each component 

that would have to be modified in order 

to achieve compliance. 

3. Discussion of alternative means of 

compliance and reasons for rejecting 

these alternatives. 

4. A detailed OEM price-volume 

quotation from an advanced air bag 

supplier, including detailed costs for the 

necessary components for each stage of 

the development program. 

5. Explanations as to why components 

from newer, compliant vehicle lines 

could not be borrowed. 

6. Corporate income statements and 

balance sheets for the period from 2002–

2005, and projected income statements 

for the period from 2006–2009 

(analyzing alternative scenarios in 

which the petition is granted and 

denied). 

We believe that this exemption will 

have negligible impact on motor vehicle 

safety because of the limited number of 

vehicles affected (approximately 85 to 

be imported for the duration of the 

requested three-year exemption). 

Furthermore, as discussed in previous 

decisions on temporary exemption 

applications, the agency believes that 

the public interest is served by affording 

consumers a wider variety of motor 

vehicle choices. 

We also note that the CCX features 

several advanced ‘‘active’’ safety 

features. These features are listed in the 

petitioner’s application.13 While the 

availability of these features is not 

critical to our decision, it is a factor in 

considering whether the exemption is in 

the public interest. 

We note that, as explained below, 

prospective purchasers will be notified 

that the vehicle is exempted from the 

specified advanced air bag requirements 

of Standard No. 208 and the headlamp 

requirements of Standard No. 108. 

Under § 555.9(b), a manufacturer of an 

exempted passenger car must affix 

securely to the windshield or side 

window of each exempted vehicle a 

label containing a statement that the 

vehicle conforms to all applicable 

Federal motor vehicle safety standards 

in effect on the date of manufacture 

‘‘except for Standard Nos. [listing the 

standards by number and title for which 

an exemption has been granted] 

exempted pursuant to NHTSA 

Exemption No. ____.’’ This label notifies 

prospective purchasers about the 

exemption and its subject. Under 

§ 555.9(c), this information must also be 

included on the vehicle’s certification 

label. 

We note that the text of § 555.9 does 

not expressly indicate how the required 

statement on the two labels should read 

in situations where an exemption covers 

part but not all of a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard. Specifically in 

the case of FMVSS No. 208, we believe 

that a statement that the vehicle has 

been exempted from Standard No. 208 

generally, without an indication that the 

exemption is limited to the specified 

advanced air bag provisions, could be 

misleading. A consumer might 

incorrectly believe that the vehicle has 

been exempted from all of Standard No. 

208’s requirements. Moreover, we 

believe that the addition of a reference 

to such provisions by number without 

an indication of its subject matter would 

be of little use to consumers, since they 

would not know the subject of those 

specific provisions. For these reasons, 

we believe the two labels should read in 

relevant part, ‘‘except for S14.5.2, S15, 

S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced 

Air Bag Requirements) of Standard No. 

208, Occupant Crash Protection, 

exempted pursuant to * * *’’. We note 

that the phrase ‘‘Advanced Air Bag 

Requirements’’ is an abbreviated form of 

the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. 

Similarly, regarding the temporary 

exemption for the CCX’s headlamps, we 

believe that the two labels should read 

in relevant part, ‘‘except for S7 of 

Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective 

Devices, and Associated Equipment, 

exempted pursuant to * * *.’’ We 

believe it is reasonable to interpret 

§ 555.9 as requiring this language. 

In sum, the agency concludes that 

Koenigsegg has demonstrated good faith 

effort to bring the CCX into compliance 

with the advanced air bag requirements 

of FMVSS No. 208 and the headlamp 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and has 

also demonstrated the requisite 

financial hardship. Further, we find 

these exemptions to be in the public 

interest. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we 

conclude that compliance with the 

advanced air bag requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash 

Protection, and the headlamp 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108, 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and 

Associated Equipment, would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried in good faith 

to comply with the standard. We further 

conclude that granting of an exemption 

from these provisions would be in the 

public interest and consistent with the 

objectives of traffic safety. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Koenigsegg CCX is 

granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption 

No. EX 06–10, from S14.5.2, S15, S17, 

S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 

571.208 and from S7 of 49 CFR 571.108. 

The exemption is effective immediately 

and continues in effect through 

December 31, 2009. 

Issued on: March 29, 2007. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–6549 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition to Modify an Exemption of a 

Previously Approved Antitheft Device; 

General Motors Corporation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an 

exemption from the Parts Marking 

Requirements of a previously approved 

antitheft device. 

SUMMARY: On August 15, 1989, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) granted in part 

General Motors Corporation’s (GM) 

petition for an exemption in accordance 

with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, 

Exemption from the Theft Prevention 

Standard for the Chevrolet Camaro 

vehicle line. The exemption was granted 

because the agency determined that the 

antitheft device proposed to be placed 

on the line as standard equipment was 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. On November 10, 2006, GM 

petitioned the agency to amend the 

exemption previously granted for the 

Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. NHTSA 

is granting in full GM’s petition to 

modify the exemption because it has 

determined that the modified antitheft 

device to be placed on the Chevrolet 

Camaro line as standard equipment will 

also likely be as effective in reducing 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 17615 

and deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with model 

year (MY) 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Mazyck’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

15, 1989, NHTSA published in the 

Federal Register a notice granting in 

part a petition from GM for an 

exemption from the parts marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard (49 CFR 541) for the 1990 

Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. The 

Chevrolet Camaro was equipped with 

the PASS–Key antitheft device (See 54 

FR 33655). For MY 1993, the device was 

changed to the PASS–Key II device. GM 

did not submit a petition for 

modification at that time because, in a 

February 7, 1992, letter to GM, the 

agency determined that changes in the 

‘‘PASS–Key II’’ constituted a de minimis 

change in the PASS-Key device. GM 

suspended production of the Chevrolet 

Camaro vehicle line at the end of the 

2003 MY. 

In a petition dated November 10, 

2006, GM requested a modification of 

the previously granted exemption for 

the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. GM 

stated that ‘‘(F) or the 2010 Model Year, 

General Motors will be reinstating 

production of the Chevrolet Camaro and 

upgrading the standard theft deterrent 

system.’’ GM’s November 10, 2006, 

submission is a complete petition, as 

required by 49 CFR Part 543.9(d), in that 

it meets the general requirements 

contained in 49 CFR Part 543.5 and the 

specific content requirements of 49 CFR 

Part 543.6. GM’s petition provides a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device 

proposed for installation beginning with 

the 2010 model year. 

The 1990 antitheft device (PASS–Key) 

installed on the Chevrolet Camaro was 

a passively activated, transponderbased, electronic immobilizer system. 

The PASS–Key system used a standard 

ignition key to rotate a specially coded 

ignition switch. Before the vehicle could 

be operated, the electrical resistance of 

a pellet embedded in the shank of the 

key had to be sensed by elements in the 

ignition lock cylinder and recognized by 

the decoder. If a key with the incorrect 

electrical resistance was inserted, the 

PASS–Key decoder module would shut 

down, disabling the start and fuel 

delivery systems. 

The 1993 antitheft device (PASS–Key 

II) was a modification of the PASS–Key 

device. GM stated that the key 

resistance read by discrete electrical 

components in the PASS–Key circuitry 

was replaced in the PASS–Key II device 

with the key resistance being 

determined by a microprocessor. 

Additionally, a security indicator would 

illuminate continuously directing the 

operator to have the vehicle serviced if 

‘‘fail enabled’’ conditions (i.e., vehicle 

does not start with the proper key 

because of a dirty or contaminated 

resistor pellet) arose. If a fault was 

detected, future ignition cycles would 

not be allowed regardless of key 

authorization. 

In its second modification, GM stated 

that it proposes to install its Chevrolet 

Camaro vehicle line with its PASS–Key 

III+ antitheft device for MY 2010. The 

PASS–Key III+ is also a transponder 

based, electronic immobilizer system. It 

is designed to be active at all times 

without direct intervention by the 

vehicle operator. The antitheft device is 

fully armed immediately after the 

ignition has been turned off and the key 

removed. The device will continue to 

provide protection against unauthorized 

use (i.e., starting and engine fueling), 

but will not provide any visible or 

audible indication of unauthorized 

vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or 

horn alarm). 

Components of the modified antitheft 

device include an electronically-coded 

ignition key, a PASS–Key III+ controller 

module and an engine control module. 

Unlike the ignition key used with the 

PASS–Key and PASS–Key II devices, 

the PASS–Key III+ ignition key contains 

electronics embedded within the head 

of the key. These electronics receive 

energy and data from the control 

module. Upon receipt of the data, the 

key will calculate a response to the data 

using secret information and an internal 

encryption algorithm, and transmit the 

response back to the vehicle. The 

controller module translates the radio 

frequency signal received from the key 

into a digital signal and compares the 

received response to an internally 

calculated value. If the values match, 

the key is recognized as valid and the 

vehicle can be operated. 

The PASS–Key III+ device has the 

potential for over four billion unique 

electrical key codes which varies with 

every ignition cycle, while the PASS–

Key and PASS–Key II has a possibility 

of 15 code combinations that never 

varies at each ignition cycle. In the 

PASS–Key III+, each key is uniquely 

coded and the vehicle can be 

programmed to operate with up to ten 

different codes, compared to the PASS–

Key and PASS–Key II devices that only 

allow a vehicle to recognize a single 

unique code. 

GM indicated that the theft rates, as 

reported by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC), are lower for 

GM models equipped with the ‘‘PASS–

Key’’-like systems which have 

exemptions from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than 

the theft rates for earlier, similarlyconstructed models which were partsmarked. Based on the performance of 

the PASS–Key, PASS–Key II, and 

PASS–Key III systems on other GM 

models, and the advanced technology 

utilized by the modification, GM 

believes that the MY 2010 antitheft 

device will be more effective in 

deterring theft than the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. 

GM stated that the theft rates for the 

2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS and the MY 

2004 Cadillac SRX currently installed 

with the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device 

exhibit theft rates that are lower than 

the median theft rate (3.5826) 

established by the agency. The Cadillac 

CTS introduced as a MY 2003 vehicle 

line has been equipped with the PASSKey III+ device since the start of 

production. The theft rates for the MY 

2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS is 1.0108 

and 0.7681 respectively. Similarly, the 

Cadillac SRX introduced as a MY 2004 

vehicle has been equipped with the 

PASS-Key III+ device since production. 

The theft rate for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX 

is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates 

experienced by these lines with 

installation of the PASS-Key III+ device 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

device. The agency agrees that the 

device is substantially similar to devices 

for which the agency has previously 

approved exemptions. 

GM’s proposed device, as well as 

other comparable devices that have 

received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lack an audible 

or visible alarm. Therefore, these 

devices cannot perform one of the 

functions listed in 49 CFR Part 

543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to 

unauthorized attempts to enter or move 

the vehicle. Based on comparison of the 

reduction in the theft rates of GM 

vehicles using a passive theft deterrent 

device with an audible/visible alarm 

system to the reduction in theft rates for 

GM vehicle models equipped with a 

passive antitheft device without an 

alarm, GM finds that the lack of an 

alarm or attention attracting device does 

not compromise the theft deterrent 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
17616 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

performance of a system such as PASSKey III+. In past petitions, the agency 

has concluded that the lack of a visual 

or audio alarm has not prevented these 

antitheft devices from being effective 

protection against theft. 

On the basis of this comparison, GM 

believes that the antitheft device (PASSKey III+) for model years 2010 and later 

will provide essentially the same 

functions and features as found on its 

MY 1990–2002 PASS-Key device and 

therefore, its modified device will 

provide at least the same level of theft 

prevention as parts-marking. GM 

believes that the antitheft device 

proposed for installation on its MY 2010 

Chevrolet Camaro is likely to be as 

effective in reducing thefts as 

compliance with the parts marking 

requirements of Part 541. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, GM provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of the proposed device. To 

ensure reliability and durability of the 

device, GM conducted tests based on its 

own specified standards. GM provided 

a detailed list of the tests conducted and 

believes that the device is reliable and 

durable since it complied with the 

specified requirements for each test. GM 

also stated that since the authorization 

code is not handled or contacted by the 

vehicle operator, the reliability of the 

PASS-Key III+ is significantly improved 

over the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II 

devices. This reliability allows the 

system to return to the ‘‘Go/No Go’’

based system, eliminating the ‘‘fail 

enabled’’ mode of operation. 

The agency has evaluated GM’s MY 

2010 petition to modify the exemption 

for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR Part 541, and has decided to 

grant it. It has determined that the 

PASS-Key III+ system is likely to be as 

effective as parts-marking in preventing 

and deterring theft of these vehicles, 

and therefore qualifies for an exemption 

under 49 CFR Part 543. The agency 

believes that the proposed device will 

continue to provide four of the five 

types of performance listed in 

§ 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; 

preventing defeat or circumvention of 

the device by unauthorized persons; 

preventing operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

If GM decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it should 

formally notify the agency. If such a 

decision is made, the line must be fully 

marked according to the requirements 

under 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and 541.6 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA suggests that if the 

manufacturer contemplates making any 

changes, the effects of which might be 

characterized as de minimis, it should 

consult the agency before preparing and 

submitting a petition to modify. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–6525 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft 

Prevention Standard; General Motors 

Corporation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the petition of General Motors 

Corporation (GM) for an exemption in 

accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR 

Part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard, for the Saturn 

Aura vehicle line beginning with model 

year (MY) 2008. This petition is granted 

because the agency has determined that 

the antitheft device to be placed on the 

line as standard equipment is likely to 

be as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with model 

year (MY) 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated October 6, 2006, GM 

requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) 

for the Saturn Aura vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2008. The petition 

requested an exemption from partsmarking pursuant to 49 CFR 543, 

Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for the entire 

vehicle line. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per year. In 

its petition, GM provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design, and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for the new 

vehicle line. The antitheft device is a 

transponder-based, electronic, 

immobilizer system. GM will install its 

passive antitheft device as standard 

equipment on its Saturn Aura vehicle 

line beginning with MY 2008. GM stated 

that the device will provide protection 

against unauthorized use (i.e., starting 

and engine fueling), but will not provide 

any visible or audible indication of 

unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing 

lights or horn alarm). GM’s submission 

is considered a complete petition as 

required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it 

meets the general requirements 

contained in § 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of § 543.6. 

The antitheft device to be installed on 

the MY 2008 Saturn Aura is the PASSKey III+. The PASS-Key III+ device is 

designed to be active at all times 

without direct intervention by the 

vehicle operator. The system is fully 

armed immediately after the ignition 

has been turned off and the key 

removed. The system will provide 

protection against unauthorized starting 

and fueling of the vehicle engine. 

Components of the antitheft device 

include an electronically-coded ignition 

key, a PASS-Key III+ controller module 

and an engine control module. The 

ignition key contains electronics 

molded into the key head. These 

electronics receive energy and data from 

the control module. Upon receipt of the 

data, the key will calculate a response 

to the data using secret information and 

an internal encryption algorithm, and 

transmit the response back to the 

vehicle. The controller module 

translates the radio frequency signal 

received from the key into a digital 

signal and compares the received 

response to an internally calculated 

value. If the values match, the key is 

recognized as valid and the vehicle can 

be operated. 

GM indicated that the theft rates, as 

reported by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC), are lower for 

GM models equipped with the ‘‘PASSKey’’-like systems which have 

exemptions from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than 

the theft rates for earlier, similarlyconstructed models which were partsmarked. Based on the performance of 

the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASSKey III systems on other GM models, 

and the advanced technology utilized by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES